TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Capitalism
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

This thread is hilarious

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well we're back to designing our hypothetical Communist paradise. As I've said in this thread, I can't see much inherent in Communism that sets a lifestyle limit on its population, beyond a vague notion of "need". Without the shift in attitude I mentioned earlier towards lifestyle and luxury, I can only see a Communist model being accepted if it guarantees a significantly more lavish lifestyle than the austere misery that previous regimes have provided. And that doesn't solve the problem.

That's the human nature argument again. You're arguing that humans are inherently selfish and spoiled. Since capitalism uses these traits to grow the economy and accustoms people to or makes people yearn for wealth and luxury, they will not accept not getting their shot at achieving it. Well, I don't see any philosophical backing for this. Why can they not be taught the opposite in an economic system predicated on something more than solely profit? What do you think will happen to people's world views if they are born and raised in a society where you are NOT told from day one that you have to go out and make as much money as possible in order to be successful?

quote:

And here we're being purely hypothetical. Realistically, wealth distribution isn't going to manifest as a sudden global shift to universal Communism.

Maybe not, but it sure as hell beats the system we're having now, where we simply accept that large swathes of the earth's population are too dumb/weak to have a decent life, and therefore deserve to be poor.

quote:

Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally fucked if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread.

In which one of these systems do you think this attitude shift is more likely to happen? I may not be a communist, but as long as we have a capitalist, hierarchically structured way of living, you will never get rid of all the influences and special interests that make sure said over-consumptive lifestyles persist in society. Then we're fucked no matter what technological advances crop up or armed conflict we suffer through.

As I've said previously in this thread, all my in-laws were born and raised in a Communist system, and believe me it didn't radically alter their world view. The stories of relatives visiting from the West and bringing wonderful gifts, artefacts of a more luxurious existence, are almost universal. People brought up in Communism aren't reprogrammed to become humble monks.

And as for which system do I think it's more likely to occur: Capitalism, overwhelmingly, because it's already in place as an interlocked global system. Effecting change in values in the current system is far more practically achievable than going through the enormous messy work of reconfiguring our global economic system. I've given examples previously in this thread of how public awareness of an environmental issue can trigger a rapid response in the market, such as the current backlash against disposable plastics. Make people aware of the impact of their actions and hit it home and you can change their attitude, which reflects in their consumer behaviour, which reflects in the market.

Also, none of this means I'm a card carrying cheerleader for the current system. I certainly think we need to row back considerably on the neoliberalism that has permeated capitalism since the Reagan and Thatcher era. Centralised legislation on environmental policy is also essential, which means bigger government.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper The human nature argument, eh? Why are you so convinced that humans HAVE TO be greedy and self-serving?

i don't really call it human nature necessarily, but it's simple biological fact that organisms are self-interested. not necessarily 100% of the time or in every situation, but certainly for the vast majority of their lives. an argument could certainly be made that capitalism helps foster the selfishness, and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but as i think system-j already noted, capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause.

I was about to write a long post, but this about sums it up.

Capitalism did not create humans, humans created capitalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Maybe not, but it sure as hell beats the system we're having now, where we simply accept that large swathes of the earth's population are too dumb/weak to have a decent life, and therefore deserve to be poor.

Again, Capitalism has many flaws, but it has absolutely raised more people out of extreme poverty than ever before. The fact that people are still poor today is not a good argument against it. In recent decades, a shocking amount of people have gotten out of extreme poverty, infant mortality numbers are down, literacy rates are up, etc etc. Many indicators of global living standards have been improving rapidly. Now, I would argue that perhaps the environmental toll that has accompanied this great rising has not been worth it, but that's a different argument altogether.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/...harry-reid.html

Don't waste your time Sand Leaper. They're cynical bastards.

Bulbs is here to help

Hoo boy. Lot of stuff to get to here.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Don't waste your time Sand Leaper. They're cynical bastards.

I don't mind doing this. This Socratic method thing is good mental exercise, and I really need to get out of my shell and talk to people more about politics.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J As I've said previously in this thread, all my in-laws were born and raised in a Communist system, and believe me it didn't radically alter their world view. The stories of relatives visiting from the West and bringing wonderful gifts, artefacts of a more luxurious existence, are almost universal. People brought up in Communism aren't reprogrammed to become humble monks.

Yes, capitalism is an easier sell than communism, since it injects rocket fuel into our base desires in order to sustain itself. Does that mean we're all animals too dumb to see this for what it is and what it will do to us in the long run? I see no reason why humans cannot work together to temper their vices and create a more sustainable future, especially when we all seem to agree that it is crucial for our species' survival. Lots of people on this planet think in those terms already (which is why fringe ideologies like anarcho-primitivism exist).

This is the third or fourth time the "humans are too selfish by nature" argument has cropped up in this thread. I'm still not buying it.

quote:

And as for which system do I think it's more likely to occur: Capitalism, overwhelmingly, because it's already in place as an interlocked global system. Effecting change in values in the current system is far more practically achievable than going through the enormous messy work of reconfiguring our global economic system. I've given examples previously in this thread of how public awareness of an environmental issue can trigger a rapid response in the market, such as the current backlash against disposable plastics.

The change in the view of the use of plastics has happened as a counter reaction to capitalist interests, not as a product of them. Do you think any major fast food chain would give two shits about introducing sustainable plastics if environmental activists and charitable organizations hadn't been applying political pressure for years? Why would the CEO of McDonald's decide to spend thousands of dollars on recyclable plastics, when he or she can use disposables and save money for the shareholders instead? Do you honestly think environmental concerns or regulation of consumption factors into capitalism at any time if it isn't with the intent of generating more profit down the line?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i don't really call it human nature necessarily, but it's simple biological fact that organisms are self-interested. not necessarily 100% of the time or in every situation, but certainly for the vast majority of their lives. an argument could certainly be made that capitalism helps foster the selfishness, and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but as i think system-j already noted, capitalism is an outcome of our self-interest rather than its root cause.

Is it the only outcome? If we really are that concerned with self-interest, why would we continue to go for capitalism when we know that it could be the trigger for a series of fatal events that can wipe us all out? I really am puzzled as to why people in this thread are so hellbent on reducing humans to little more than the simplest of instincts. We're better than our desire to have more stuff!

quote:

Originally posted by Lews The fact that people are still poor today is not a good argument against it. In recent decades, a shocking amount of people have gotten out of extreme poverty, infant mortality numbers are down, literacy rates are up, etc etc. Many indicators of global living standards have been improving rapidly. Now, I would argue that perhaps the environmental toll that has accompanied this great rising has not been worth it, but that's a different argument altogether.

I don't think you can simply gloss over the point that the planet cannot handle a western capitalist mindset on a complete global scale. Yes, capitalism certainly has lead to the largest degree of progress and prosperity in the world thus far (for now). The question is for who and at what cost?

In absolutely no way did I suggest that the plastics backlash was a "product" of capitalist interests. I quite clearly used it as an example of how consumer mentality can bring about a positive change within the current system. Your scornful rhetorical question actually illustrates my point neatly. Corporations don't give a shit about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly.

*Except profit, etc.

Taking Kenny out of the equation, I�m not really sure what we�re debating. Seems more like a naive gripe session against them �capitalist� ( who ever they are). No matter what form of political system, every country has adopted capitalism as their economic foundation. All countries also employ some limitations or regulations to capitalism. I guess we could argue about the type limitations to be imposed.

As regards to the environment it�s obvious that climate change posses the greatest threat that humankind has ever faced and yet very little is being done about it. While governments could do better they can�t do anything without the support of the public and their willingness to change their life style.

The root cause is people�s desire to change our environment and the industry means and scale that has grown to a point it�s putting our existence at risk. Since neither capitalism nor industrialization is going away some solution to our environment problems will need to be found within that frame work.

Unfortunately, we have formed such a strong reliance on fossil fuels, I don�t see any significant action being taken until a crisis of epic proportions happens.

There is no political system that would stop people from wanting the modern conveniences they have grown accustomed to that contribute our environment demise.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J In absolutely no way did I suggest that the plastics backlash was a "product" of capitalist interests. I quite clearly used it as an example of how consumer mentality can bring about a positive change within the current system.

Sure, but do you think we have time to play tug of war with corporations for that long?

I find it hard to believe that consumers in the lower classes can somehow gradually subvert an entire economic model through demand that at the same time feeds into said model. Capitalists put huge efforts into distracting people from looking into how stuff is produced (since it will otherwise affect their profits), and even when we have the Internet to see sweatshops, factory farms, dying rainforests and workers collapsing in warehouses, corporations are still raking it in (just look at what Jeff Bezos is worth these days). They have far too much power in every level of society for this idea to succeed before humans are done for. Reforming the whole system instead sounds like a much safer bet, for instance through automation (I don't actually want to join a gang that's on its way to shoot Porky).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Corporations don't give a shit about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly. *Except profit, etc.

This is in no way ok and the issue exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Sure, but do you think we have time to play tug of war with corporations for that long?

I think "corporations"* have been shown to move quite quickly once public interest reaches a key tipping point. The real war is with the apathy of the ordinary individual.

Besides, you said before that automation and its theorised triggering of some kind of UBI is inevitable and a steady technological and social gradient that will, ironically enough, by driven largely by corporations trying to maximise profits. There's not much you can do day-to-day to accelerate the rise of the robots, so what exactly does proselytising endlessly about socialism achieve? As we've seen with Kenny, it results in acolytes so fixated on their grand solution that they're almost completely ignorant as to the details of the more pressing problem.

While we wait for the technological shift that could genuinely undermine capitalism, it's far more productive to fight constantly to raise awareness of how much wastage, excess and pointless plastic wrapping encases our daily lifestyles.

*I highlight this word because for me the most striking thing about the plastics backlash was how, seemingly overnight, small independent bars and caf�s suddenly stopped offering plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery. As soon as the awareness is there, many of the businesses that aren't Tessier-Ashpool SA are willing to act very quickly indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Is it the only outcome? If we really are that concerned with self-interest, why would we continue to go for capitalism when we know that it could be the trigger for a series of fatal events that can wipe us all out? I really am puzzled as to why people in this thread are so hellbent on reducing humans to little more than the simplest of instincts. We're better than our desire to have more stuff!

Are we, though? I'm split between the idea that all humans are noble creatures with a drive to create meaning, however ephemeral, and the view that only a few humans are like that and the majority are lazy, short-sighted, greedy bastards. Recent political events have given me little hope that the former view is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I don't think you can simply gloss over the point that the planet cannot handle a western capitalist mindset on a complete global scale. Yes, capitalism certainly has lead to the largest degree of progress and prosperity in the world thus far (for now). The question is for who and at what cost?

I am not trying to gloss over that at all, that's my worry. Everyone around the world trying to maximise their material lifestyle will (most likely) end in chaos. Though I think the planet will be fine - it just may become inhabitable for humans. I'd much rather take a sustainable world where 5% of people have 90% of resources and 95% of people have 10% of resources than an unsustainable world with pure equality. Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Corporations don't give a shit about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly. *Except profit, etc.

I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock.

I was being more than a little facetious with that footnote.

I know that, but I worry not everyone reading this thread knows that

"Insanity - Doing the same things and expecting different results"

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I think "corporations"* have been shown to move quite quickly once public interest reaches a key tipping point.

That sounds suspiciously like revolution to me.

quote:

The real war is with the apathy of the ordinary individual.

Yes, an apathy that corporations actively work to uphold, as I mentioned in my previous post.

quote:

Besides, you said before that automation and its theorised triggering of some kind of UBI is inevitable and a steady technological and social gradient that will, ironically enough, by driven largely by corporations trying to maximise profits. There's not much you can do day-to-day to accelerate the rise of the robots, so what exactly does proselytising endlessly about socialism achieve?

Do you think automation and UBI will benefit workers automatically without workers getting involved in the transitional phase? Especially when said transitional phase necessarily has to involve a government that will cater to the capitalist class first? Yes, UBI and automation might give us the potential for a way out of capitalism's excesses without the need for revolution, but I'm not convinced it will do so if automation simply replaces workers while the old capitalist framework remains. That sounds more like a recipe for a dystopian nightmare.

quote:

*I highlight this word because for me the most striking thing about the plastics backlash was how, seemingly overnight, small independent bars and caf�s suddenly stopped offering plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery. As soon as the awareness is there, many of the businesses that aren't Tessier-Ashpool SA are willing to act very quickly indeed.

That doesn't help much when Tessier-Ashpool controls gigantic swathes of the economy, in large part due to their direct connections to the government. Sure, those small independent coffee bars are noble, but there's a reason they are small and independent: They charge far more for their coffee than the four Starbucks branches on the same block, who cannot afford to serve cheap coffee AND take care of the environment/workers at the same time. Thus, the amount of change they can bring to an economy run by a handful of coffee giants is largely inconsequential, especially when said giants constantly tell us that we should get the cheapest deal whenever we can.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Are we, though? I'm split between the idea that all humans are noble creatures with a drive to create meaning, however ephemeral, and the view that only a few humans are like that and the majority are lazy, short-sighted, greedy bastards. Recent political events have given me little hope that the former view is correct.

I guess I'm more optimistic than you in that particular aspect, then. I'll have to read more philosophy and get back to you.

quote:

I'd much rather take a sustainable world where 5% of people have 90% of resources and 95% of people have 10% of resources than an unsustainable world with pure equality. Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion.

Well, right now we have neither. If, by your own admission, most humans are short-sighted, greedy bastards, will a world where 5% of the people have 90% of the resources ever be sustainable? Also, equality of outcome != equality of access. I don't think classic lefty thinkers ever argued for the former. That is more of a postmodernist idea.

quote:

I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock.

That letter sounds well and good on the surface, but again, all of the concerns and considerations put forth here will result in Blackrock yielding competitive edge to other competitors who have less scrouples in their daily operations.

Fink says that companies must benefit all stakeholders at the same time. How will you do this when worker interests and shareholder profits are diametrically opposed to each other, and when the latter will always be the ultimate point of concern for a corporation's board of directors? He says that the "societal impact of your business" will "impact the potential of growth". Does that sound like someone with a higher goal than pure profit maximization? Nearly everything in this letter pertains to growth and how to maximize it in the current economic climate. I can't say that this really helps you in your case for a capitalist system that supposedly has other priorities than profit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion.

The ideology is deep. Spoken like a true individualist. Or fascist, either or.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper That sounds suspiciously like revolution to me.

Yes, but a consumers' revolution, with no force involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Do you think automation and UBI will benefit workers automatically without workers getting involved in the transitional phase? Especially when said transitional phase necessarily has to involve a government that will cater to the capitalist class first? Yes, UBI and automation might give us the potential for a way out of capitalism's excesses without the need for revolution, but I'm not convinced it will do so if automation simply replaces workers while the old capitalist framework remains. That sounds more like a recipe for a dystopian nightmare.

What do you mean by workers 'getting involved' ? Voting for politicians who promise to implement UBI? Or taking to the streets in violent protest?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper That doesn't help much when Tessier-Ashpool controls gigantic swathes of the economy, in large part due to their direct connections to the government. Sure, those small independent coffee bars are noble, but there's a reason they are small and independent: They charge far more for their coffee than the four Starbucks branches on the same block, who cannot afford to serve cheap coffee AND take care of the environment/workers at the same time. Thus, the amount of change they can bring to an economy run by a handful of coffee giants is largely inconsequential, especially when said giants constantly tell us that we should get the cheapest deal whenever we can.

Right, but where the small independent coffee bars led, Starbucks followed: Starbucks Plastic Straws

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I guess I'm more optimistic than you in that particular aspect, then. I'll have to read more philosophy and get back to you.

Read more philosophy and more history

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Well, right now we have neither. If, by your own admission, most humans are short-sighted, greedy bastards, will a world where 5% of the people have 90% of the resources ever be sustainable? Also, equality of outcome != equality of access. I don't think classic lefty thinkers ever argued for the former. That is more of a postmodernist idea.

If those 5% of people are of the noble, virtuous variety, then yes.

I think few people would argue against equality of access in theory, although in practice I find it impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper That letter sounds well and good on the surface, but again, all of the concerns and considerations put forth here will result in Blackrock yielding competitive edge to other competitors who have less scrouples in their daily operations.

From my personal experience, this has not been the case. And, perhaps being concerned about the social impact is actually a competitive advantage, not a disadvantage, when it comes to gaining more clients.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Fink says that companies must benefit all stakeholders at the same time. How will you do this when worker interests and shareholder profits are diametrically opposed to each other, and when the latter will always be the ultimate point of concern for a corporation's board of directors? He says that the "societal impact of your business" will "impact the potential of growth". Does that sound like someone with a higher goal than pure profit maximization? Nearly everything in this letter pertains to growth and how to maximize it in the current economic climate. I can't say that this really helps you in your case for a capitalist system that supposedly has other priorities than profit.

Several things. One, I'm not sure all worker interests and shareholder profits are necessarily diametrically opposed to each other. Surely they both want the company to do well, so they can be rewarded for their efforts? That's completely ignoring stock-option bonuses in many industries (finance, tech, etc) that align worker interests and shareholder profits.

Two, I don't see your quote in the letter, although perhaps I'm missing it. Were you paraphrasing this? :

quote:

To sustain [financial] performance, however, you must also understand the societal impact of your business as well as the ways that broad, structural trends � from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change � affect your potential for growth.

I interpret that as saying, focusing solely on profits will end in disaster, if you want to focus on profits, you need to look at the bigger picture as well. Which, really, wasn't that what Marx wrote?

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid The ideology is deep. Spoken like a true individualist. Or fascist, either or.

Here's a thought experiment for you, Kenny.

Which situation is better?

A. 95% of humans in the world eat ten apples and one large bag of rice a day, while 5% eat twenty apples and two large bags of rice a day.
B. 100% of humans in the world eat 5 apples and one small bag of rice a day.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.